Perhaps reading the linked document instead of the headline would answer that question for you.

> In the time interval 1979–1998, 273 consecutive cases of SCD in young people (≤35 years) which occurred in the Veneto Region of Italy were prospectively studied

It's a past study, present tense wouldn't seem to apply.

I am not sure what you mean this study is not recent and it is done by studying historical data

> In the time interval 1979–1998, 273 consecutive cases of SCD in young people (≤35 years) which occurred in the Veneto Region of Italy were prospectively studied.

The article didn't have 2001 in the title when I posted, so there is that.

I would suggest not to comment without reading the article. This way you would avoid such unpleasantries.

Ironically this attempt to blame the Covid vaccines missed the fact the study pre-dates them by 20 years.

> Hmm I wonder what could be causing this. What have we done in the last few years that is different? > It's a mystery for sure.

The article was obviously posted here for that reason. Why else would they post a 20 year old article here?

I posted the article because the title caught my attention. Only after I looked more closely it did I realize it was published in 2001. I considered deleting the post until I read the article and saw that it was a PROSPECTIVE study. As a long-time medical researcher and author (https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=5DdrMc8AAAAJ&hl=en), I know how much more likely to be valid are results from prospective rather than retrospective series.

Thank you for explaining.

To point out that this is nothing new, in order to discredit the conspiracy theorists